P802.1CS Link-local Registration Protocol PAR Review Comments from 802 WGs Nov. 09, 2016

Comments from the 802.11 WG

802.1CS - Standard: Link-local Registration Protocol, PAR and CSD November 2016 802.1CS - Standard: Link-local Registration Protocol, PAR and CSD PAR: 5.2 “rapidly, accurately, and efficiently” do you have any metric to quantify these adverbs. 5.5 – expansion of first use Acronym Change MRP "802.1Q Multiple Registration Protocol“ to “802.1Q Multiple Registration Protocol (MRP)” 5.5 – Quantify: smaller vs bigger – give numeric range for each. CSD: 1.2.1 – MRP acronym expansion needed. Change “New applications like industrial automation” to “New applications in industrial automation” 1.2.3 LRP and LLDP expansion needed Suggestion – add a use case example to expand the 2nd paragraph 1.2.4 What is IS-IS? Please expand. Jon Rosdahl, (Qualcomm)

5.2 “rapidly, accurately, and efficiently” – 802.11 Comment #1 on PAR: 5.2 “rapidly, accurately, and efficiently” – do you have any metric to quantify these adverbs. Proposed Response: It is impractical to assign numerical values for rapidity, accuracy, and efficiency for a software protocol, as opposed to a physical link. As indicated in 5.4 Purpose, these words can be read as, “more rapidly, accurately, and efficiently than MRP.” (No change to PAR.) Original text in 5.2 Scope: This standard specifies protocols, procedures, and managed objects for a Link-local Registration Protocol (LRP) to replicate a registration database from one end to the other of a point-to-point link, to replicate changes to parts of that database, and to do so rapidly, accurately, and efficiently with regard to frames exchanged. A facility will be provided to purge the replicated database if the source becomes unresponsive. LRP will be optimized for databases on the order of 1 Mbyte or smaller.

5.5 expansion of first use Acronym 802.11 Comment #2 on PAR: 5.5 expansion of first use Acronym Change MRP "802.1Q Multiple Registration Protocol“ to “802.1Q Multiple Registration Protocol (MRP)” Proposed Response: apply suggested change Original text in 5.5 Need for the Project: Current MRP "802.1Q Multiple Registration Protocol" is designed for much smaller database and inefficient for applications with bigger database. There is a need to overcome this limitation in an efficient manner.

5.5 – Quantify: smaller vs bigger – give numeric range for each. 802.11 Comment #3 on PAR: 5.5 – Quantify: smaller vs bigger – give numeric range for each. Proposed Response: Change “designed for much smaller database and inefficient for applications with bigger database” to “optimized for databases of 1500 bytes, and slows significantly when used for larger databases”. . Original text in 5.5 Need for the Project: Current MRP "802.1Q Multiple Registration Protocol" is designed for much smaller database and inefficient for applications with bigger database. There is a need to overcome this limitation in an efficient manner.

1.2.1 – MRP acronym expansion needed. Proposed Response: 802.11 Comment #4 on CSD: 1.2.1 – MRP acronym expansion needed. Proposed Response: Replace the first “MRP” with “802.1Q Multiple Registration Protocol (MRP)” Change “New applications like industrial automation” to “New applications in industrial automation” Change “New applications like industrial automation require” to “New applications, including industrial automation, require” Original text in 1.2.1 Broad market potential Each proposed IEEE 802 LMSC standard shall have broad market potential. At a minimum, address the following areas: a) Broad sets of applicability. b) Multiple vendors and numerous users. MRP has proven to be a successfully and widely deployed protocol and this standard provides additional capabilities and performance requested by existing MRP users. New applications like industrial automation require much larger databases than MRP can support. Multiple vendors will participate in the development of the project.

1.2.3 LRP and LLDP expansion needed Proposed Response: 802.11 Comment #5 on CSD: 1.2.3 LRP and LLDP expansion needed Proposed Response: Replace the first “LRP” with “Link-local Registration Protocol (LRP)” and replace the first “LLDP” with “802.1AB Link Layer Discovery Protocol (LLDP)” Original text in 1.2.3 Distinct Identity No IEEE 802 standards support registration databases of the required scale. This project differs from existing and ongoing 802.1Q mechanisms because 802.1Q-2014 MRP, formerly 802.1Qak, does not fulfill scalability and performance requirements needed by some use cases. LRP is based on link-local operation similar to LLDP (802.1AB), which is also a stand-alone specification. However LLDP is for discovery whereas LRP provides registrations. Since LRP is a link-local protocol, it requires no changes to 802.1Q. LRP is independent of bridging functions specified within 802.1Q. LRP is not dependent on the managed objects defined in 802.1Q. LRP does not mandate adding new or changing existing features in 802.1Q. Furthermore, LRP may be used outside of IEEE 802.1, e.g. by the IETF.

Suggestion – add a use case example to expand the 2nd paragraph 1.2.4. 802.11 Comment #6 on CSD: Suggestion – add a use case example to expand the 2nd paragraph 1.2.4. Proposed Response: What is IS-IS? Please expand. Replace “IS-IS” with “Intermediate System to Intermediate System (IS-IS)  ISO/IEC 10589:2002” Original text in 1.2.4 Technical Feasibility Mechanisms needed for this project are widely used by other protocols already, e.g. the information propagation based on link local data exchange. Link local data exchange techniques needed for this project have been proven by other protocols such as the link state principles of IS-IS.

Comments from the 802.3 WG

802.3 Comment #1 on PAR: PAR, 5.2 Scope—The scope appears in the standard and therefore should be written in present tense. While the first sentence does describe what is in the standard, the last sentence needs to be rewritten to describe what is in the standard, not what will be provided. Proposed Response: Rewrite the last sentence in present tense as “LRP is optimized for databases on the order of 1 Mbyte or smaller.” Original text in 5.2 Scope: This standard specifies protocols, procedures, and managed objects for a Link-local Registration Protocol (LRP) to replicate a registration database from one end to the other of a point-to-point link, to replicate changes to parts of that database, and to do so rapidly, accurately, and efficiently with regard to frames exchanged. A facility will be provided to purge the replicated database if the source becomes unresponsive. LRP will be optimized for databases on the order of 1 Mbyte or smaller.

802.3 Comment #2 on CSD: CSD— The answers are very terse, causing some to infer that the CSD questions were not taken seriously. Proposed Response: <Not specific about which answers in the CSD are very terse.>